Not to beat a dead horse, but ...

[leethet]

This quote from the L.A. Times review is precisely my sense of the thing, a sense acquired entirely from trailers of this movie and of Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" franchise. Note: I'm not claiming cleverness or insight or anything - I have not seen, nor do I intend to see, any of the films involved - just saying this reviewer has expressed my feelings about things.

"The film seems to be following the same essential formula as Ritchie's successful "Sherlock Holmes" pictures, to take a vintage story set in the past and shoot it essentially as a modern story, with fancy contemporary effects and camera tricks, quippy dialogue and stylized costumes and sets. "

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-man-from-uncle-review-20150814-story.html

Comments

[gilda-elise.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen any of the Holmes movies, so it would be hard for me to compare the two, especially since I won't have seen the UNCLE movie until tomorrow. *g* Oddly, I find that I'm more inclined to be swayed by other fans' reviews, than that of a professional reviewer, so I'm still hoping for the best–or at least not the worst.

[elmey.livejournal.com]

I'm still trying to figure out why I'd want to see a completely different version of Napoleon and Illya, not so much physically, I can get past that (I think), but they seem to have much different characters as well. I don't really want to dilute my view of the show.

If the consensus were that this is a great script on the other hand... that would have taken a different kind of director.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

I expect it's an enjoyable film for those going in with no UNCLE preconceptions, if you like generic thrillers, which I don't. Then again, some fen have quite enjoyed it, so even if you have some knowledge of UNCLE, it could still be likable.

Strictly personally, I knew with this one, based only on previews, as I knew when I saw the previews for the Sherlock Holmes "franchise," that it wasn't anything that spoke to me as a person who loved the source material. That's not a quality judgment (although in a way I guess it is, because it means I don't think Guy Ritchie knows how to make a period film. At. All.) - millions of people loved the Holmes flicks, so clearly they're solidly made movies, and of course Robert Downey Jr. is eminently watchable in pretty much anything.

[leethet.livejournal.com]

This is the puzzler for me, but then I've never been a fan of AUs. If you're going to take only the names and the broadest hint of the concept, why not just make a new film? Even the ST movies, as I understand, hewed fairly closely to the premise, at least, of the original series (the Federation setup, etc.). If you make a new film, you have no built in fan base, but if you eliminate everything about the original concept, you just alienate your built in fan base, so ... seems the result would be the same. Still, it's early days - maybe a lot of fen will love this and it will spark UNCLE.2 - who can say?

[elmey.livejournal.com]

I tend to think pretty short legs, but my record as a seer is quite spotty ;) Someone has already started a kinkmeme on dreamwidth though. (haven't seen it, just saw the tumblr announcement)